Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The High Court held that the revenue authorities committed grave illegality by not granting pre-decisional hearing to the appellants before blocking their Electronic Credit Ledger u/r 86A of CGST Rules, violating principles of natural justice. The Court observed that although Rule 86A doesn't expressly provide for pre-decisional hearing, it has to be read into the provision when serious civil consequences arise. The authorities passed orders solely based on communication from another officer without independently analyzing if Input Tax Credit was on account of fake invoices, which is impermissible. The orders lacked valid material constituting 'reasons to believe' and were passed on borrowed satisfaction, rendering them bald, vague, and unreasoned. Quashing the impugned orders, the Court allowed the appeals, holding that the mandatory requirements for invoking Rule 86A were not fulfilled by the revenue authorities.
The High Court held that the revenue authorities committed grave illegality by not granting pre-decisional hearing to the appellants before blocking their Electronic Credit Ledger u/r 86A of CGST Rules, violating principles of natural justice. The Court observed that although Rule 86A doesn't expressly provide for pre-decisional hearing, it has to be read into the provision when serious civil consequences arise. The authorities passed orders solely based on communication from another officer without independently analyzing if Input Tax Credit was on account of fake invoices, which is impermissible. The orders lacked valid material constituting 'reasons to believe' and were passed on borrowed satisfaction, rendering them bald, vague, and unreasoned. Quashing the impugned orders, the Court allowed the appeals, holding that the mandatory requirements for invoking Rule 86A were not fulfilled by the revenue authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
